RealGM

Do both teams still win the title? Who gets better or worse?

I don't know a ton about the 77 team but I don't think Shaq would take that team all the way. They played a very different brand of ball then what Shaq is used too and I am not sure if they could adapt quickly enough to Shaq's style to make it work. We also have never really seen Shaq play on a team that isn't stacked with other volume scorers and the like.

Walton and Kobe winning is a coin flip because of the Blazers who nearly beat the Shaq Lakers. I think Walton, Bryant and Rice coached would Phill would be very good on offense, probably comparable to what they were in real life. Defensively, the Lakers were the #1 rated ones already if I can recall so adding Walton would be adding more to a good thing already.

The Lakers get more out of the swap. I think they were a more stacked team in general, so replacing Shaq with another top ten guy isn't going to do change much.

HeartBreakKid wrote:I don't know a ton about the 77 team but I don't think Shaq would take that team all the way. They played a very different brand of ball then what Shaq is used too and I am not sure if they could adapt quickly enough to Shaq's style to make it work. We also have never really seen Shaq play on a team that isn't stacked with other volume scorers and the like.

Walton and Kobe winning is a coin flip because of the Blazers who nearly beat the Shaq Lakers. I think Walton, Bryant and Rice coached would Phill would be very good on offense, probably comparable to what they were in real life. Defensively, the Lakers were the #1 rated ones already if I can recall so adding Walton would be adding more to a good thing already.

The Lakers get more out of the swap. I think they were a more stacked team in general, so replacing Shaq with another top ten guy isn't going to do change much.

You think Walton is a top 10 peak guy?

Also curious to why you consider the Lakers “more stacked”.

I don’t know much about the Blazers supporting cast, but on paper they don’t seem to be notably worse.

Moreover, even if you have Shaq with the better supporting cast that can be offset by them beating better teams. I for one thing don’t think the Lakers with Walton have the offensive firepower to beat the Blazers. They barely did it with Shaq. The Pacers i’m not sure about.

Anyway, to me Shaq is just simply a much better player. So i don’t see why he somehow fares worse in a swapped scenario.

77 Blazers were built around Walton's defense and passing. Not sure Shaq's game would be a great fit

No-more-rings wrote:...

Also curious to why you consider the Lakers “more stacked”....

Presumably it comes down to Kobe Bryant being considered considerably better than the Blazers second best player, Maurice Lucas. Other than those guys, a lot of solid defensive role players, some shooters, Blazers a little deeper I would say as Harper and AC Green getting very long in the tooth.

No-more-rings wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I don't know a ton about the 77 team but I don't think Shaq would take that team all the way. They played a very different brand of ball then what Shaq is used too and I am not sure if they could adapt quickly enough to Shaq's style to make it work. We also have never really seen Shaq play on a team that isn't stacked with other volume scorers and the like.

Walton and Kobe winning is a coin flip because of the Blazers who nearly beat the Shaq Lakers. I think Walton, Bryant and Rice coached would Phill would be very good on offense, probably comparable to what they were in real life. Defensively, the Lakers were the #1 rated ones already if I can recall so adding Walton would be adding more to a good thing already.

The Lakers get more out of the swap. I think they were a more stacked team in general, so replacing Shaq with another top ten guy isn't going to do change much.

You think Walton is a top 10 peak guy?

Also curious to why you consider the Lakers “more stacked”.

I don’t know much about the Blazers supporting cast, but on paper they don’t seem to be notably worse.

Moreover, even if you have Shaq with the better supporting cast that can be offset by them beating better teams. I for one thing don’t think the Lakers with Walton have the offensive firepower to beat the Blazers. They barely did it with Shaq. The Pacers i’m not sure about.

Anyway, to me Shaq is just simply a much better player. So i don’t see why he somehow fares worse in a swapped scenario.

For their era no one else really had a 2nd player as good as Bryant in conjunction with a superstar like Shaq/Walton. Rice is an excellent third option for the 2000s. The Lakers had good depth considering their era and their big 3.


Yes, I consider Walton a top ten peak. If you dont have him as one he certainly must be close.

Not every team in 2000 was like the Blazers. They were the exception. I already said they could beat the Walton Lakers, which isn't saying much as they could obviously beat the Shaq Lakers if they played again.